On July 15, U.S. District
Court Judge Thomas Zilly, a Reagan appointee, ruled that Washington state’s
primary system violates the First Amendment’s Freedom of Association clause.
Washington State Republican Party v Logan, C05-927, Seattle. The state
will appeal to the 9th circuit, but not on an expedited basis.
Therefore, this year’s partisan county elections will use an open primary,
not the "top-two" primary. Minor party and independent candidates
will be able to petition their way onto the November 2005 ballot.

The Washington state
primary system, passed by the voters last year, Initiative 872, mandates that
all candidates run in the September primary. Then, only the top two vote-getters
appear on the November ballot. History shows that this system invariably means
only Democrats and Republicans appear on the November ballot. The voters of
California, also in November 2004, had defeated an initiative that was almost
identical, Proposition 62.

In essence, Judge Zilly
wrote that when a state prints party labels on ballots, it is holding a partisan
election, not a non-partisan election. And when a state uses partisan elections,
it must respect the desires of political parties to let only their own members
(loosely defined) choose the party’s nominees.

The state had argued
that its elections are non-partisan, and therefore political party associational
rights are immaterial. The state said that party labels on the ballot do not
mean anything about the parties themselves. The state said the party labels
are just clues to the philosophy of each candidate. However, other state election
laws, such as the one defining "qualified party," undercut this
claim. A qualified party in Washington is a group that polled 5% of the vote
for any statewide race at the last statewide election.

A qualified party has
the right to elect officers at the primary, and to enjoy certain other privileges
not given to mere interest groups. If the state really had non-partisan elections,
it would not carry out these activities.

The Republican Party
had filed the lawsuit. The Democratic and Libertarian Parties had intervened
on the side of the Republican Party.

The Libertarian Party
had argued that "top-two" violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s ballot
access precedents, but the decision does not concern that point. The decision
merely says, "The Court does not reach the minor party ballot access
issue."

This is only the third
constitutional lawsuit any minor political party has won so far in 2005. The
other two decisions are from New York. The first one was Green Party of
New York v State Board of Elections, which was finally won on April 22,
2005. On that day, a New York law prohibiting people from registering into
unqualified parties was held unconstitutional. That had been no surprise,
since a U.S. District court had issued an injunction against it in 2003, and
the 2nd circuit had agreed in 2004. For the other case from New
York, see item #3.

OREGON
NOW HAS A PRIMARY SCREEN-OUT

On July 21, Oregon Governor
signed HB 2614, which makes it illegal for voters who vote in a primary to
sign an independent candidate petition. The bill has no effect on petitions
to create a new party.

The Secretary of State
has not yet ruled on how to handle instances when a voter signs an independent
candidate petition before voting in the primary. No law prevents an independent
candidate from circulating a petition as early as he or she wishes. HB 2614
is badly worded and does not discuss this problem.

N.Y.
INDEPENDENCE PARTY LAWSUIT

On June 27, the 2nd
circuit declined to overturn a U.S. District Court injunction in Independence
Party of Richmond County v Graham, 04-4859. The 2nd circuit
said the case is moot.

Last year, a U.S. District
Court had ruled that New York must let independent voters vote in the Independence
Party’s primary for Assembly in the 61st district, on Staten Island.
The state had appealed, claiming that the party’s county executive committee
did not have authority to make such a decision.

That September 2004 primary
made history; it was the first primary in New York that had ever permitted
independent voters to vote. For such a historic event, the turnout was low.
Two members of the party competed in the September 14, 2004 primary; one defeated
the other by 30 to 16. Election officials did not keep a separate tally of
how many of these votes were cast by independents, and how many by members
of the party. The district had 1,942 Independence Party members, and 11,379
independent voters. There had been little time for the party to publicize
the fact that independent voters could vote in its primary. The party had
won the lawsuit less than two weeks before the primary.

MISSOURI
BILL VETOED

On July 14, Missouri Governor
Matt Blunt vetoed HB 525, which would have given a new party the flexibility
to decide whether to run a presidential candidate, after the party gets on
the ballot. The Governor said he did not oppose this idea, but he opposed
some campaign finance changes that were made in the same bill. The legislature’s
web page erroneously said that the Governor had signed the bill.

LEGISLATIVE
NEWS

Alaska: HB 94
was signed into law on June 27. The state finally, for the first time in history,
has a procedure for independent presidential candidates to get on the ballot.

Indiana: SB 467
was signed on May 12. It ends the subsidy to parties that polled 10% or more
of the vote in the last election that had been in effect for over twenty years.
Proceeds from the sale of personalized license plates had been transferred
to the Democratic and Republican Parties. The law had been upheld in federal
court in 1984.

Louisiana: on
July 1, SB 53 was signed. It moves congressional elections from a November/December
pattern, to a September/November schedule. The bill cannot go into effect
unless federal Judge Frank Polozola approves it, since the same schedule was
held illegal (because it conflicts with federal law) in 1997.

Maryland: on July
21, the Frederick City Council passed an ordinance easing ballot access for
minor parties. Even though the Green, Libertarian, Populist and Constitution
Parties are qualified in the state, the city had its own rules, and only recognized
the Democratic and Republican Parties. The new city law follows state law
for party recognition in city elections.

New Jersey: on
July 7, A30 was signed into law. It moves the presidential primary from June
to late February. The change has no effect on the June primary for other office,
nor on any independent or minor party petition deadlines. As a result of this
change, and the Arkansas change earlier this year, only twelve states hold
presidential primaries later than mid-March: Alabama, California, Idaho, Indiana,
Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota
and West Virginia.

North Carolina:
bills on ballot access and Instant-Runoff voting have not moved lately, because
the legislature is working on the budget. But the legislature will probably
settle the budget soon, and then spend a month on ordinary bills.

SOCIALIST
WORKERS PARTY WINS 2 RULINGS

Pennsylvania:
on July 20, the Socialist Workers Party nominee for Mayor of Pittsburgh, Jay
Ressler, won a concession that the state’s loyalty oath for state and local
candidates is unconstitutional. Therefore, he will be on the ballot, even
though he wouldn’t sign a statement that he is not a "subversive person."

Washington: on
July 14, the Seattle Elections Commission voted to exempt a Socialist Workers
Party candidate for Mayor from identifying his campaign contributors. The
election is non-partisan. The SWP won a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1982
that it need not identify its campaign contributors because the evidence showed
that persons known to support the party are often harassed.

MICHIGAN
GAIN

For thirty years, minor
parties in Michigan have suffered from the refusal of state courts to adjudicate
disputes about who the legal party officers are. Courts in other states routinely
settle such disputes when they arise. But in 1976, 1980, 2000 and 2004, intraparty
squabbles arose in Michigan, and the courts refused to settle these disputes.
In all four instances, the state kept party nominees off the ballot, on the
grounds that there was no way to know which nominees were legitimate.

Finally, a state court
in Michigan has actually adjudicated such a dispute. On March 9, the 30th
circuit court ruled that Cal Zastrow, not Bill McMaster, is the state chair
of the Constitution Party (in Michigan, the Constitution Party name is U.S.
Taxpayers Party). U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan v McMaster, 04-716-CZ.

NEW
MEXICO RULING

On July 12, New Mexico’s
Secretary of State confirmed that the Green and Constitution Parties are ballot-qualified.
The law is difficult to understand, but the ruling means that parties are
not disqualified until they have failed the vote test twice in a row, not
just once.

LAWSUIT
NEWS

Illinois: on April
11, a State Appellate Court ruled that a group of independent candidates may
submit a single petition for all of them, if they are all running for the
same at-large office. McNamara v Oak Lawn Electoral Board, 827 NE 2d
996. Although the law says independents each need their own petition, the
court said the law is directory, not mandatory.

New Jersey: on
May 5, a mid-level state court ruled that primary ballots must give each candidate
an equal chance to win a lottery for the best spot on the ballot. Schundler
v Donovan, 872 A 2d 1092. The Court said the state must use a method that
"requires all candidates to begin from the same position, relative to
the customary drawing."

Ohio: the 6th
circuit will hear two ballot access cases in September. On September 14 it
hears the Libertarian Party case against the petition deadline for new parties,
and on September 23 it hears the case against the March 1 deadline for non-presidential
independent candidates.

Virginia: a U.S.
District Court will hear the Republican Party’s case, on whether the party
may exclude voters who voted in the Democratic primary in the recent past,
on September 9.

2006
PETITIONING

The 2006 petitioning
chart is omitted in this issue, but will reappear in the September issue.
Since the July 1 B.A.N., the only state petitions that have gained
as many as 500 signatures are the Green Party petitions in Indiana, Nebraska
and Utah.

Comparing petitioning
during the first six months of 2001 with petitioning during the first six
months of 2005, one finds that the only parties that are doing more petitioning
this year than they were four years ago are the Green and Constitution Parties.
The Libertarian Party collected approximately 87,000 valid signatures during
the first half of 2001, but has only collected about 30,000 valid signatures
during the first half of 2005.

BRITISH
ELECTION

On May 5, 2005, the United
Kingdom held elections for House of Commons. Each of the 641 districts had
at least three candidates on the ballot. The average district had 5.5 candidates
on the ballot. No district had more than ten candidates, except Sedgfield.
Sedgfield is Tony Blair’s constituency, and fifteen candidates ran in that
race. Apparently, the attraction of running against the incumbent prime minister
attracted more candidates than is normal. Candidates for House of Commons
need not live in the district they are running in.

In the United States,
in November 2004, 8% of the U.S. House races had only one candidate on the
ballot, and one U.S. Senate race had only one candidate on the ballot. For
U.S. House, the popular vote nationwide was Republican 49.96%, Democratic
47.30%, other 2.74%.

In Britain, candidates
for House of Commons need ten signatures and a filing fee of 500 pounds, which
is returned if the candidate polls 5% or more. The filing deadline is eleven
days before the election.

U.S.
SUPREME COURT

Judge John Roberts, the
likely new member of the U.S. Supreme Court, has only been a judge since mid-2003.
He has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. circuit, where he has never
had a case involving minor party or independent candidates. The D.C. Circuit
never hears ballot access cases, although it does hear cases involving presidential
debates.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor,
who is leaving, is one of the justices who was unfriendly toward minor party
and independent candidates at the beginning of her years as a justice, but
who changed her views as time passed. She voted against ballot access for
John B. Anderson in 1983 in Anderson v Celebrezze. She voted against
lenient ballot access in 1986 in Munro v Socialist Workers Party.

She voted against requiring
states to permit write-in votes in 1992 in Burdick v Takushi. She voted
against requiring states to permit fusion in 1997 in Timmons v Twin Cities
Area New Party. She voted against requiring minor party and independent
candidates to be included in public TV-sponsored debates in 1998 in Arkansas
Educational TV v Forbes. In 1999 she dissented from the majority opinion
in Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation, on the issue of
whether states could require initiative circulators to be registered voters.
The Court invalidated the requirement, but O’Connor would have sustained it.

But, in 2000, she voted
in support of political party freedom of association in California Democratic
Party v Jones, in a case brought by two minor parties in conjunction with
the two major parties. Most significantly, as reported in the June 1, 2005
B.A.N., she wrote in Clingman v Beaver that courts must apply
heightened scrutiny when minor parties and independent candidates challenge
restrictive ballot access laws. "Heightened scrutiny" means a court
requires a state to prove that there is a neutral necessity for the restriction.
If the state can’t prove this, the judge will invalidate the law.

It is not surprising
that O’Connor changed her position over the years, from disinterest in minor
party problems, to sympathetic support. Other Supreme Court justices who made
similar shifts in position include former Justices Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun,
and Potter Stewart. By contrast, no justice ever went from being friendly
to minor parties and independent candidates, to hostile.

As judges gain more experience
and more self-confidence in their own knowledge of the subject, they learn
that there is no state interest in restrictive ballot access laws. Great Britain
enjoys a stable two-party system yet it has lenient and non-discriminatory
ballot access laws. The United States had no restrictive ballot access laws
during its first century of existence, and relatively lenient ballot access
laws before 1931.

CHART:
NUMBER OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN US HISTORY

Ever since 1974, the
Federal Election Commission has been required to decide which minor party
national committees qualify as bona fide "national committees."
This is because federal campaign finance law lets political party national
committees receive bigger donations than other campaign committees.

To carry out its mission,
the FEC has issued a series of rulings on a case-by-case basis, approving
the Libertarian, Socialist, Natural Law, Constitution, Reform and Green Parties
as "national committees." The FEC standards have tended to toughen
over the years, but they were lenient in the 1970’s and early 1980’s. In those
early rulings, one can abstract some general principles: that a bonafide national political party is one that placed its presidential candidate
on the ballot under the party label in at least two states, ran candidates
for Congress under the party label in at least two states, had a set of national
party officers and held national nominating meetings.

When one applies these
standards back in time, to the beginning of federal elections under the Constitution,
one can determine which national political parties have had bona fide existence.
The chart below shows the number of such parties in existence during the past.

The chart shows that
there have never been more than eleven such political parties in U.S. history.
The significance of this is that it rebuts the idea that lenient ballot access
laws cause a multiplication of political parties. Ballot access laws were
non-existent before 1889, and were lenient in almost all states during the
period 1890-1931, yet there were fewer political parties in the U.S. back
then.

The average number of
political parties between 1889 and 1928 was 6.7, and since then the average
has been 7.2. The September 1 B.A.N. will include a list of the political
parties that have met the FEC standards, going back to 1789, and make further
observations about what the list shows.

Volume One covers the
period 1960-1973. Volume Two is not yet published. The book is a political
memoir of Barry Sheppard, who was a student at MIT in 1958, where he became
friends with Peter Camejo, also a student at MIT. They joined the Socialist
Workers Party at the same meeting in 1959. Sheppard became the party’s acting
National Secretary in 1971, and Camejo became the party’s presidential candidate
in 1976. Sheppard represented the party to Trotskyist groups around the world,
and lived in Paris for several years doing political work.

Anyone who is interested
in political activism, or the history of the 1960’s and early 1970’s, will
enjoy this book. Sheppard writes very well, and I found it hard to put the
book down until I was finished. The Socialist Workers Party was a small party,
but it was very effective in organizing mass protests against U.S. policy
in Vietnam. It also had significant interactions with Malcolm X, who spoke
at SWP meetings. The book also deals with President Kennedy’s assassination,
and Fidel Castro’s rise to power.

The Socialist Workers
Party has been active in fighting restrictive ballot access laws ever since
1969. It formed CoDEL, the Committee for Democratic Election laws, in 1970,
but CoDEL only lasted seven years. The U.S. Supreme Court heard five of the
party’s election law cases (in 1971, 1974, 1979, 1982 and 1986). No other
minor party has had this many cases heard in the Supreme Court. Unfortunately,
Volume One doesn’t cover this struggle.

OSCE
CRITICIZES U.S.

On July 5, the OSCE (Office
for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the formal name for the Helsinki
Accords) Parliamentary Assembly voted overwhelmingly to criticize the U.S.
for refusing to let District of Columbia voters have voting representation
in Congress. The Assembly has 260 members, all of whom are legislators. Only
two members from outside the U.S. voted against the resolution, one from Canada
and one from Denmark.

CARTER-BAKER
COMMISSION

Former president Jimmy
Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker have held two hearings on
election problems in the United States. However, the Commission is only interested
in hearing about voter registration, voting technology, and election administration.
Efforts to let people testify about ballot access and presidential debates
have been rebuffed.

PARTY
REVENUE FROM STATE INCOME TAX "CHECK-OFF"

-

Demo.

Rep.

Green

Lib’t.

Nat.
Law

Constitutn

Reform

other

Alabama

3,124

7,155

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

Arizona

20,654

15,010

-
-

2,019

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

Idaho

13,397

14,542

-
-

987

233

656

34

-
-

Iowa

54,145

49,047

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

Kentucky

132,904

128,312

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

Maine

13,603

5,015

4,558

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

Minn.

98,044

74,371

10,918

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

8,454

No.
Caro.

138,194

123,719

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

Ohio.

191,257

191,257

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

Rhode
I.

7,744

4,846

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

Utah

46,398

82,008

2,624

2,540

-
-

1,786

-
-

17,200

Virginia

30,997

18,956

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

TOTAL

750,461

714,238

18,100

5,546

233

2,442

34

25,654

The twelve states named
above give state income-tax payers a chance to direct a small contribution
to the political party of the taxpayer’s choice. The chart above lists the
amounts received by each party. Ohio does not let taxpayers decide which party
to help, and only lets taxpayers help parties that polled 20% of the voter
in the last election. All the other states include all qualified parties.
Parties in the "other column" are Independence in Minnesota, and
Personal Choice in Utah. See page six for more information about the Utah
data.

PENNSYLVANIA
SPECIAL ELECTION

Pennsylvania held a special
election on July 19 to fill a vacancy for State Representative, district 131.
The vote was: Republican 50.80%; Democratic 42.02%; independent 5.34%; Green
1.85%. In November 2004 in the same district, the Democrats had not run anyone.
The vote in 2004 had been Republican 90.75%; Green 5.20%; independent 4.05%.
The district comprises part of Allentown.

PERSONAL
CHOICE PARTY DRAWS BIG DONATIONS ON UTAH TAX FORM

The chart on page three
shows the amount of money donated so far this year to each political party
on state income tax forms, in the twelve states that permit this. One surprise
from the data is the 9% support among Utah taxpayers for the Personal Choice
Party. The only minor party that did better was the Maine Green Party, which
always does well.

The Personal Choice Party
exists only in Utah, and qualified for the ballot for the first time last
year. The party refuses the money. The party founder, and its only officer,
is Dr. Ken Larsen of Salt Lake City. He says since the party has no treasurer,
no bank account, no conventions or other ways to make decisions, the party
is unable to accept the money donated to it. Furthermore, the party rules
specify that the rules themselves can never be altered, so this situation
cannot be changed. Presumably the $17,000 donated to the party will revert
to the state government. In 2004, the party only received .10% for president,
but it polled 4.7% for Auditor, above the 2% test, so it is still ballot-qualified.

Admiral James Stockdale
died on July 5. He had been Ross Perot’s running mate in 1992, and the only
person who has ever been included in vice-presidential debates with Democratic
and Republican nominees. His funeral was held on July 16 on the U.S.S. Reagan,
and California state government flags flew at half-mast that day.

FORMER
SECRETARY OF STATE WILL SEEK LIBERTARIAN NOMINATION

According to Politics1.com,
Missouri’s former Democratic Secretary of State, Judith Moriarty, has said
she plans to seek the Libertarian Party nomination for Governor of Missouri
in 2008. She was Secretary of State between 1992 and 1994.

AL
SHARPTON ENDORSES GREEN

Al Sharpton, one of the
nine candidates for last year’s Democratic presidential nomination who was
invited into party-sponsored debates, has endorsed a Green Party nominee.
On July 3, Sharpton endorsed Elaine Brown, who is the Green Party nominee
for Mayor of Brunswick, Georgia, this coming November. The Brunswick election
is officially non-partisan.

GREEN
NATIONAL COMMITTEE MEETING

The Green Party National
Committee met in Tulsa, Oklahoma, July 23-24. The "Greens for Democracy"
proposals were defeated by approximately two to one. They had called for:
(1) changing the formula for allocating national convention delegates; (2)
binding national convention delegates to always vote according to state wishes;
(3) a policy of never endorsing major party candidates. David Cobb and Peter
Camejo both attended and said they have no interest in seeking the party’s
2008 presidential convention. Consensus at the meeting was that the party
will choose a female presidential candidate in 2008. Camejo said he is leaning
in favor of running for Governor of California in 2006.

SUBSCRIBING
TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

If you use Paypal, you
can subscribe to B.A.N., or renew, with Paypal. If you use a credit
card in connection with Paypal, use ban@richardwinger.com.
If you don’t use a credit card in conjunction with Paypal, use sub@richardwinger.com.